dismissed EB-1C Case: Retail And Auto Rental

PUBLIC COW 
i&ntifqiing dato deleted ta 
prevent dearly unwarranted 
inwxsim of@ privacy 
U.S. Department of Eiomeland Security 
20 Mass. Ave., N.W., Rm. 3000 
Washington, DC 20529 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
F 
- 
FILE: Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: JUN 0 4 2007 
SRC 04 170 5 1235 
IN RE: 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Multinational Executive or Manager Pursuant to 
Section 203(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(l)(C) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
INSTRUCTIONS: 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
-4, 
Robert P. Wiemann, Chief 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: The preference visa petition was initially approved on May 3, 2005. However, upon further 
review, the Director, Texas Service Center, determined that an approval may not have been warranted. 
Accordingly, a notice of intent to revoke was issued. The approval was subsequently revoked by the director 
in a decision dated July 19, 2006. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (MO) on 
appeal. The appeal will be rejected. 
The petitioner was incorporated in the state of Texas on February 12, 2004. It claims to be engaged in the 
business of furniture retail and the rental of automobiles and seeks to hire the beneficiary as its business 
development director. Accordingly, the petitioner endeavors to classify the beneficiary as an employment-based 
immigrant pursuant to section 203@)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 U.S.C. 
1153(b)(l)(C), as a multinational executive or manager. The director determined that the petitioner had failed to 
establish that it had been doing business in the United States for one year prior to filing ths petition as required by 
8 C.F.R. 5 204.56)(3)(i)(D). 
The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal using Form EOIR-29, which was accompanied by a filing fee of 
$1 10. The director declined to treat the appeal as a motion and forwarded the appeal to the AAO for review. 
Title 8 C.F.R. 5 103.2(a)(7)(i) requires that Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) reject any petition or 
application filed with the incorrect filing fee. Likewise, 8 C.F.R. fj 103.3(a)(2)(i) requires the affected party 
to file an appeal using Form I-290B. In this case, the petitioner filed an appeal using Form EOIR-29, Notice 
of Appeal to Board of Immigration Appeals from a Decision of an INS officer,' and submitted the incorrect 
filing fee of $1 10.~ While the AAO acknowledges the director's improper instructions suggesting that the 
petitioner use Form EOIR-29 instead of the Form I-290B in order to file the appeal with the MO, 8 C.F.R. 
103.3(a)(2)(i) clearly provides the proper filing instructions, including the place of filing and the proper 
form that must be used. All petitioners were also properly informed of the change in filing fee when filing a 
Form I-290B with the AAO. See 70 Fed. Reg. 50957. The MO does not have the discretion to consider an 
improperly filed appeal. Therefore, the appeal will be rejected based on its improper filing.3 
ORDER: The appeal is rejected. 
1 
While counsel improperly filed the appeal using Form EOIR-29, it must be noted that the Board of Immigration 
Appeals does not have jurisdiction over this matter. See 8 C.F.R. $ 1003.l(b). The AAO properly has jurisdiction over 
this matter. The authority to adjudicate appeals of employment-based immigrant petitions is delegated to the AAO by 
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pursuant to the authority vested in him through the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296. See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1 (effective March 1, 2003); see 
also 8 C.F.R. $ 2.1 (2003). 
 The AAO exercises appellate jurisdiction over the matters described at 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.l(f)(3)(iii) (as in effect on February 28, 2003). 
 See DHS Delegation Number 0150.1(U) supra; 8 C.F.R. 
3 103.3(a)(iv). 
2 
The filing fee for an appeal to the AAO became $385.00 on September 28,2005. 70 Fed. Reg. 50957 (Aug. 29,2005). 
3 
 It should be noted that, according to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, the petitioner forfeited its corporate 
privileges in Texas on January 6, 2006 due its failure to satisfy all state tax requirements. As such, the petition would be 
subject to automatic revocation without prior notice even if it had not been revoked based on the grounds of ineligibility 
discussed in the director's decision. See 8 C.F.R. $ 205.1(a)(3)(iii)(D).